Core 2 was 2006

That thing was a pain in the ass to install too!

This CPU actually performs better than Intel's top CPUs in a few benchmarks. Anyway, clockspeed isn't the deciding factor when talking about CPU architectures. AMD should have learned that when Intel had the high-clocked Pentium 4 which couldn't compete with their own lower-clocked Pentium III processors because of the long pipelines it had compared to Pentium III's short pipeline. They actually knew what to do when they released the Athlon XP and Athlon 64, but it seems they forgot how things work.

the 3.3 ghz on my i5 is more than fast enough for what i want

If I would have a shitload of spare money, I would build a PC consisting of FX-9590 and an Asus Ares II God I can imagine the power :D and well, the huge power draw and temperature of a fireplace :D

so If clock speed is becoming more irrelevant. what are the best measurements to look for when choosing a cpu. number of cores and?

This article is wrong. IBM had a 5GHz commercially available processor in 2008.

This CPU is a highly overclocked and cherry picked existing FX-8xxx CPU. As power consumption goes up more than linearly with clock speed, the 220W power use is to be expected and you will need a special expensive motherboard as well.

Also this is beaten by a lot of Intel CPUs, in both single and multi-threaded tasks. Its performance/$ is very poor.

The only reason to buy this is if you absolutely need the fastest AMDpnly CPU.

No easy number any more. Look up benchmarks for the kind of application you're interested in.

Intel's NetBurst architecture taught us all that clock frequencies mean diddly squat.

Why? What happened around 2004, and how is it relevant to now?